So new law that ensures public servants and those receiving public services must do so with their faces uncovered. This is for secularity since the title of the bill is: "An Act to foster adherence to State religious neutrality and, in particular, to provide a framework for religious accommodation requests in certain bodies"

That article makes it sound like its purely religious garb but the law isn't written that way. The text appears to be:

Personnel members of bodies must exercise their functions with their face uncovered, unless they have to cover their face, in particular because of their working conditions or because of occupational or task-related requirements.

Similarly, persons receiving services from such personnel members must have their face uncovered.

There was an amendment that included public transit authorities or operators in the list of bodies that must adhere to this. So it means you need to have your face uncovered when you get on a bus and for the whole ride....in a province where it can go down to -40 in the winter. Even better, there IS a religious accommodation that can be allowed to get around this. Sooo, basically they've now passed a law where someone in a burka can still receive services provided they've gotten their religious accommodation (no idea HOW you identify these people of course) but it's technically illegal for me to get onto a bus with a scarf over my face in the winter. Bravo legislators, bravo.

Uh... there's a specific exception for this. No, it doesn't say you can cover up if the temperature goes below -40, but it does say, and I'm quoting from you, "unless...in particular because of their working conditions or because of occupational or task-related requirements." Getting on a bus at 40 below certainly counts. And if you want to nitpick that it's not a "working" condition or an "occupational" requirement, this clause is part of the part where people providing services are regulated. The next sentence in your own quote says "Similarly, persons receiving services..." and it seem to me that the word "similarly" de-nitpicks it.

You may not like the law, but your stated objection to it doesn't pass muster.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Chen wrote:So new law that ensures public servants and those receiving public services must do so with their faces uncovered. This is for secularity since the title of the bill is: "An Act to foster adherence to State religious neutrality and, in particular, to provide a framework for religious accommodation requests in certain bodies"

I don't like religious body covering laws. Bodies, especially women's bodies, or public servants' bodies... are not... sacred treasures that must be defended of their purity and virginity? So: No covering your bodies from head to toes please. It creeps me out. No covering your faces plz to be working w/me face uncovered at all times? I HATE veils I HATE constricting feminine layered clothing over my entire body it robs me of my natural assets workin' the ways they were intended. SO NO face covering for public servants or women thanks for reading bye bye~ <3

Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.

Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

i am not really certain how you hating restrictive clothing translates into, therefore other people should be banned from exercising their freedom to dress how they want. i don't think muslim women are trying to force non-muslim women in canada into hijab.

You want to know the future, love? Then wait:I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

Courts blocked the face covering part of the law from being implemented until the government actually put forth the guidelines they promised in how the restrictions would actually work and what accommodations could be requested. They say those guidelines will be ready in the summer.

natraj wrote:i am not really certain how you hating restrictive clothing translates into, therefore other people should be banned from exercising their freedom to dress how they want. i don't think muslim women are trying to force non-muslim women in canada into hijab.

It's a bit weird for me. On the one hand, would be a first amendment issue in the US. But on the other, the entire point of the burqa and masks is to intentionally make it difficult if not impossible to socialize with the outside. It's sort of why I also oppose private courts; while on the surface if two parties want to have their civil dispute resolved outside the court system, why not, but the reality is that often one of the parties doesn't meaningfully consent to use it because either they are kept ignorant of actual options or the community forces them to use the courts.

There was nothing actually driving the law except pandering to the xenophobes in the general population. Any situation where a face covering was problematic in terms of receiving services, there were accommodations in place. It's not like wearing a burka let you bypass customs seeing your face or anything. Or prevent you from having to identify yourself (visually) when getting a drivers license or passport or medicare card. If your face was necessary for identification purposes you ended up having to show your face to SOMEONE to get said service. Else you would be denied services as expected. In the cases where seeing your face was unnecessary (on a bus paying full fare, for example), well there was no issue.

Politically it was still the smart Machiavellian play from the Liberals. Every other party was either a separatist party, or one who wanted more severe restrictions on religious garb or both. So yes the Liberals pissed off the Muslim community and people who supported them, but who else would you turn to? The PQ who twice tried to institute much more restrictive religious bans (that basically excluded Christians)? Quebec Solidaire who have 2 seats and are still separatists? The CAQ who say they aren't separatists (which no one is sure to believe or not) and also voted against the current ban because it didn't go far enough?

Um, YOU Wrong dude. I still get harassed no matter how chastely or carefully I dress myself 'cause like they saw a womanly figure or the outlines of my breasts or even... my shoulders or neck? And I could be covering most of those and men would still look at those areas longingly anyways. And I guess you can't see even outlines of women's figures in full covering religious outfits yet... what if something slips off? OOPS NOW I see your face or neck or shoulders or w/evs now I gonna lust all over you? Why lusty priests why? </3

Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.

Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

I think lust is a constant. If all women wore burqas or all women wore slingshot swimsuits, the average level of male horniness would not change. That's why, thanks to internet porn, I'm basically immune to the comparatively minimal amount of sex in advertisements.

Stop moving the goalposts. Yes all the things you wrote are bad things and yet none of them support the initial statement that internet porn sex trafficking is a thing. The story you linked in your last post wasn't about porn at all, it was just plain regular prostitution sex trafficking. The pics were not posted for porn purposes but for the prostitution purposes. And no one is arguing sex trafficking doesn't exist because clearly it does. Trafficking someone for porn though is what was being questioned because it's probably one of the easiest ways for these people to actually get caught.

CorruptUser wrote:But back on topic. Is a face covering ban actually going to help integrate Muslims in Quebec, or just isolate them further?

Of course it's not going to help them integrate. It seems that whenever one of these laws are proposed there's more harassment and threats against the people who do wear this religious garb, at least in public. I mean the ones who cover their faces are some of the more religious people due to the severity of it anyways. It's not like they're suddenly going to give up wearing it. More likely they'll either leave or simply give up going into situations where they'd need to remove it. Neither helps with integration.

You don't impose any government limitations in that regard and you let the people decide for themselves. There are people who wear Burkas and the like by their own free choice (not forced by say a husband or family). There was an estimate that fewer than 100 people even wore a burka/niquab in Quebec anyways. I don't see how you can force people to somehow not treat their wives as second class citizens. You can empower the women to see that they have other choices and give them the freedom to make those choices. You don't do it by limiting their existing religious freedom.

CorruptUser wrote:I mean, a culture that keeps women second class is definitely a problem for everyone,

I don't know, but this phrase applies equally to the US, where women are increasingly at risk of not having control over their own bodies, they get paid less, they are ridiculed widely when expressing their opinions... There are a lot of Muslims, there are a lot of different ways people wear head covers, there are a lot of different reasons people would choose to wear them. Please don't clump the entirety of the Muslim world in one group that uniformly treats women as shit.

CorruptUser wrote:I mean, a culture that keeps women second class is definitely a problem for everyone,

I don't know, but this phrase applies equally to the US, where women are increasingly at risk of not having control over their own bodies, they get paid less, they are ridiculed widely when expressing their opinions... There are a lot of Muslims, there are a lot of different ways people wear head covers, there are a lot of different reasons people would choose to wear them. Please don't clump the entirety of the Muslim world in one group that uniformly treats women as shit.

We are talking about the sections of Muslim culture with burqas and other face coverings. Not Muslims as a whole, who for the most part despise burqas.

I'm pretty sure even within that group, opinions vary a lot. I would suggest talk with the parties you believe to be hurt by this (i.e. women wearing burqas, niqabs, etc.) and hear what they have to say.